Brookings Topics - Saudi Arabiahttps://www.brookings.edu
Brookings Topics - Saudi ArabiaThu, 04 Aug 2016 20:23:44 +0000en-UShourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.5.3nohttps://www.brookings.edu/2016/07/26/was-saudi-king-salman-too-sick-to-attend-this-weeks-arab-league-summit/Was Saudi King Salman too sick to attend this week’s Arab League summit?http://webfeeds.brookings.edu/~/171725112/0/brookingsrss/topics/saudiarabia~Was-Saudi-King-Salman-too-sick-to-attend-this-weeks-Arab-League-summit/
http://webfeeds.brookings.edu/~/171725112/0/brookingsrss/topics/saudiarabia~Was-Saudi-King-Salman-too-sick-to-attend-this-weeks-Arab-League-summit/#respondMon, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000http://www.brookings.edu?p=160500&preview_id=160500King Salman failed to show at the Arab League summit this week in Mauritania, allegedly for health reasons. The king’s health has been a question since his accession to the throne last year.

]]>
King Salman failed to show at the Arab League summit this week in Mauritania, allegedly for health reasons. The king’s health has been a question since his accession to the throne last year.

The Saudi press and the Royal Court had promised the king would attend the summit as late as Sunday. He is currently on vacation in Tangiers, Morocco—a short plane ride from Nouakchott. He travels with his own medical facilities. But Nouakchott offers few additional medical facilities and no luxury hotels, the summit was held in a special large tent. No explanation has yet been officially provided for his absence.

Salman, 80, has suffered from pre-dementia for several years, according to some sources. He has taken on a full schedule as monarch, however, and traveled extensively. In his absence while in Morocco, Crown Prince Muhammed bin Nayef is running the Kingdom’s business. Deputy Crown Prince Muhammed bin Salman visited Washington last week for the ministerial meeting on fighting the Islamic State. The king’s ill health will fuel the rumors of tension between the two princes.

The king’s ill health will fuel the rumors of tension between the two princes.

The king was expected to stay in Tangiers through August and attend a wedding of one of his sons there. Long vacations are normal for Saudi monarchs.

]]>
http://webfeeds.brookings.edu/~/171725112/0/brookingsrss/topics/saudiarabia~Was-Saudi-King-Salman-too-sick-to-attend-this-weeks-Arab-League-summit/feed/0UncategorizedKing Salman failed to show at the Arab League summit this week in Mauritania, allegedly for health reasons. The king’s health has been a question since his accession to the throne last year.
The Saudi press and the Royal Court had promised the king would attend the summit as late as Sunday. He is currently on vacation in Tangiers, Morocco—a short plane ride from Nouakchott. He travels with his own medical facilities. But Nouakchott offers few additional medical facilities and no luxury hotels, the summit was held in a special large tent. No explanation has yet been officially provided for his absence.
Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi was also expected to attend the summit but did not show. Egyptian authorities say he was too occupied by business at home. Some press reports claim Sissi was afraid of a possible assassination plot.
Salman, 80, has suffered from pre-dementia for several years, according to some sources. He has taken on a full schedule as monarch, however, and traveled extensively. In his absence while in Morocco, Crown Prince Muhammed bin Nayef is running the Kingdom's business. Deputy Crown Prince Muhammed bin Salman visited Washington last week for the ministerial meeting on fighting the Islamic State. The king’s ill health will fuel the rumors of tension between the two princes.
The king’s ill health will fuel the rumors of tension between the two princes.
The king was expected to stay in Tangiers through August and attend a wedding of one of his sons there. Long vacations are normal for Saudi monarchs.
Aside from the no-shows, the summit had no surprises on substance. It condemned terrorism and called for unity, as well as endorsed the Arab peace proposal originally drafted by Salman's predecessor, King Abdullah. King Salman failed to show at the Arab League summit this week in Mauritania, allegedly for health reasons. The king’s health has been a question since his accession to the throne last year.
The Saudi press and the Royal Court had promised ... https://www.brookings.edu/2016/07/14/why-the-iran-deals-second-anniversary-may-be-even-more-important-than-the-first/Why the Iran deal’s second anniversary may be even more important than the firsthttp://webfeeds.brookings.edu/~/171792924/0/brookingsrss/topics/saudiarabia~Why-the-Iran-deal%e2%80%99s-second-anniversary-may-be-even-more-important-than-the-first/
Thu, 14 Jul 2016 15:26:00 +0000http://www.brookings.edu?p=160459&preview_id=160459At the time that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran was being debated here in Washington, I felt that the terms of the deal were far less consequential than how the United States responded to Iranian regional behavior after a deal was signed. I see the events of the past 12 months as largely having borne out that analysis.

]]>
At the time that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran was being debated here in Washington, I felt that the terms of the deal were far less consequential than how the United States responded to Iranian regional behavior after a deal was signed. I see the events of the past 12 months as largely having borne out that analysis. While both sides have accused the other of “cheating” on the deal in both letter and spirit, it has so far largely held and neither Tehran nor Washington (nor any of the other signatories) have shown a determination to abrogate the deal or flagrantly circumvent its terms. However, as many of my colleagues have noted, the real frictions have arisen from the U.S. geostrategic response to the deal.

Author

I continue to believe that the Obama administration was ultimately correct that signing the JCPOA was better than any of the realistic alternatives—even if I also continue to believe that a better deal was possible, had the administration handled the negotiations differently. However, its regional approach since then has left a fair amount to be desired:

The president gratuitously insulted the Saudis and other U.S. allies in his various interviews with Jeff Goldberg of The Atlantic.

After several alarming Iranian-Saudi dust-ups, administration officials have none-too-privately condemned Riyadh and excused Tehran in circumstances where both were culpable.

Washington has continued to just about ignore all manner of Iranian transgressions from human rights abuses to missile tests, and senior administration officials have turned themselves into metaphorical pretzels to insist that the United States is doing everything it can to assist the Iranian economy.

And the overt component of the administration’s Syria policy remains stubbornly focused on ISIS, not the Bashar Assad regime or its Iranian allies, while the covert side focused on the regime remains very limited—far smaller than America’s traditional Middle Eastern allies have sought.

To be fair, the administration has been quite supportive of the Gulf Cooperation Council war effort in Yemen—far more so than most Americans realize—but even there, still much less than the Saudis, Emiratis, and other Sunni states would like.

To be blunt, the perspective of America’s traditional Sunni Arab allies (and to some extent, Turkey and Israel) is that they are waging an all-out war against Iran and its (Shiite) allies across the region. They have wanted the United States, their traditional protector, to lead that fight. And they feared that the JCPOA would result in one of two different opposite approaches: either that the United States would use the JCPOA as an excuse to further disengage from the geopolitical competition in the region, or even worse, that Washington would use it to switch sides and join the Iranian coalition. Unfortunately, their reading of events has been that this is precisely what has happened, although they continue to debate whether the United States is merely withdrawing or actively changing sides. And as both Bruce Reidel and I have both stressed, this perception is causing the GCC states to act more aggressively, provoking more crises and worsening proxy warfare with Iran that will inevitably aggravate an already dangerously-unstable Middle East and raises the risk of escalation to something even worse.

U.S. President Barack Obama walks with Saudi King Salman at Erga Palace upon his arrival for a summit meeting in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia April 20, 2016. Photo credit: Reuters/Kevin Lamarque.

Looking to year two

All that said, I wanted to use the first anniversary of the JCPOA to think about where we may be on its second anniversary. By then, we will have a new president. Donald Trump has not laid out anything close to a coherent approach to the Middle East, nor does he have any prior experience with the region, so I do not believe we can say anything reasonable about how he might handle the region if he somehow became president. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, has had considerable experience with the region—as first lady, senator, and secretary of state—and she and her senior aides have discussed the region to a much greater extent, making it possible to speculate on at least the broad contours of her initial Middle East policy.

In particular, Clinton has been at pains to emphasize a willingness to commit more resources to deal with the problems of the Middle East and a fervent desire to rebuild the strained ties with America’s traditional Middle Eastern allies. From my perspective, that is all to the good because an important (but hardly the only) factor in the chaos consuming the Middle East has been the Obama administration’s determination to disengage from the geopolitical events of the region and distance itself from America’s traditional allies. The problem here is not that the United States always does the right thing or that our allies are saints. Hardly. It is that the region desperately needs the United States to help it solve the massive problems of state failure and civil war that are simply beyond the capacity of regional actors to handle on their own. The only way to stop our allies from acting aggressively and provocatively is for the United States to lead them in a different, more constructive direction. In the Middle East in particular, you can’t beat something with nothing, and while the United States cannot be the only answer to the region’s problems, there is no answer to the region’s problems without the United States.

My best guess is that our traditional allies will enthusiastically welcome a Hillary Clinton presidency, and the new president will do all that she can to reassure them that she plans to be more engaged, more of a leader, more willing to commit American resources to Middle Eastern problems, more willing to help the region address its problems (and not just the problems that affect the United States directly, like ISIS). I think all of that rhetorical good will and a sense (on both sides) of putting the bad days of Obama behind them will produce a honeymoon period.

[T]he second anniversary of the JCPOA could prove even more fraught for America and the Middle East than the first.

But I suspect that that honeymoon will come to an end after 6 to 18 months, perhaps beginning with the second anniversary of the JCPOA and occasioned by it. I suspect that at that point, America’s traditional allies—the Sunni Arab States, Israel, and Turkey—will begin to look for President Clinton to turn her words into action, and from their perspective, that is probably going to mean doing much more than President Obama. I suspect that they will still want the United States to join and/or lead them in a region-wide war against Iran and its allies. And while I think that a President Clinton will want to do more than President Obama, I see no sign that she is interested in doing that much more.

Syria is one example. The GCC wants the United States to commit to a strategy that will destroy the Assad regime (and secondarily, eliminate ISIS and the Nusra Front). Clinton has said she was in favor of a beefed-up covert campaign against the Assad regime and that she is in favor of imposing a no-fly zone over the country. If, as president, she enacts both, this would be a much more aggressive policy than Obama’s, but as I have written elsewhere, neither is likely to eliminate the Assad regime, let alone stabilize Syria and end the civil war—the two real threats to both the United States and our regional allies (and our European allies).

Even more to the point, I cannot imagine a Hillary Clinton administration abrogating the JCPOA, imposing significant new economic sanctions on Iran, or otherwise acting in ways that it would fear could provoke Tehran to break the deal, overtly or covertly. That may look to our traditional allies like Washington is trying to remain on the fence, which will infuriate them. After Obama, and after Clinton’s rhetoric, they expect the United States to stand openly and resolutely with them. At the very least, such American restraint will place further limits on the willingness of a Clinton administration to adopt the kind of confrontational policy toward Tehran that our regional allies want, and that her rhetoric has led them to expect.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton (C) speaks with Jordan’s Foreign Minister Nasser Judeh (L) and United Arab Emirates Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Anwar Gargash as they participate in the Libya Contact Group family photo at the Emirates Palace Hotel in Abu Dhabi June 9, 2011. Photo credit: Reuters/Susan Walsh.

Reconcile, or agree to disagree?

Let me be clear, I am not suggesting that the United States should adopt the GCC analysis of what is going on in the region wholeheartedly. I think that it overstates Iran’s role as the source of the region’s problems and so distracts from what I see as the region’s real problems—state failure and civil wars—even if the Iranians have played a role in exacerbating both.

Instead, my intent is simply to highlight that there are some important strategic differences between the United States and its regional allies, differences that are not all Barack Obama’s fault but reflect important differences that have emerged between the two sides. If this analysis is correct, then the second anniversary of the JCPOA could prove even more fraught for America and the Middle East than the first. The honeymoon will be over, and both sides may recognize that goodwill and rousing words alone cannot cover fundamental divergences in both our diagnosis of what ails the region and our proposed treatment of those maladies. If that is the case, then both may need to make much bigger adjustments than they currently contemplate. Otherwise, the United States may find that its traditional allies are no longer as willing to follow our lead, and our allies may discover that the United States is no longer interested in leading them on the path they want to follow.

]]>
UncategorizedAt the time that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran was being debated here in Washington, I felt that the terms of the deal were far less consequential than how the United States responded to Iranian regional behavior after a deal was signed. I see the events of the past 12 months as largely having borne out that analysis. While both sides have accused the other of “cheating” on the deal in both letter and spirit, it has so far largely held and neither Tehran nor Washington (nor any of the other signatories) have shown a determination to abrogate the deal or flagrantly circumvent its terms. However, as many of my colleagues have noted, the real frictions have arisen from the U.S. geostrategic response to the deal.
Author
Kenneth M Pollack
Senior Fellow - Foreign Policy, Center for Middle East Policy
I continue to believe that the Obama administration was ultimately correct that signing the JCPOA was better than any of the realistic alternatives—even if I also continue to believe that a better deal was possible, had the administration handled the negotiations differently. However, its regional approach since then has left a fair amount to be desired:
- The president gratuitously insulted the Saudis and other U.S. allies in his various interviews with Jeff Goldberg of The Atlantic. - After several alarming Iranian-Saudi dust-ups, administration officials have none-too-privately condemned Riyadh and excused Tehran in circumstances where both were culpable. - Washington has continued to just about ignore all manner of Iranian transgressions from human rights abuses to missile tests, and senior administration officials have turned themselves into metaphorical pretzels to insist that the United States is doing everything it can to assist the Iranian economy. - And the overt component of the administration's Syria policy remains stubbornly focused on ISIS, not the Bashar Assad regime or its Iranian allies, while the covert side focused on the regime remains very limited—far smaller than America's traditional Middle Eastern allies have sought.
To be fair, the administration has been quite supportive of the Gulf Cooperation Council war effort in Yemen—far more so than most Americans realize—but even there, still much less than the Saudis, Emiratis, and other Sunni states would like.
To be blunt, the perspective of America's traditional Sunni Arab allies (and to some extent, Turkey and Israel) is that they are waging an all-out war against Iran and its (Shiite) allies across the region. They have wanted the United States, their traditional protector, to lead that fight. And they feared that the JCPOA would result in one of two different opposite approaches: either that the United States would use the JCPOA as an excuse to further disengage from the geopolitical competition in the region, or even worse, that Washington would use it to switch sides and join the Iranian coalition. Unfortunately, their reading of events has been that this is precisely what has happened, although they continue to debate whether the United States is merely withdrawing or actively changing sides. And as both Bruce Reidel and I have both stressed, this perception is causing the GCC states to act more aggressively, provoking more crises and worsening proxy warfare with Iran that will inevitably aggravate an already dangerously-unstable Middle East and raises the risk of escalation to something even worse. U.S. President Barack Obama walks with Saudi King Salman at Erga Palace upon his arrival for a summit meeting in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia April 20, 2016. Photo credit: Reuters/Kevin Lamarque.
Looking to year two
All that said, I wanted to use the first anniversary of the JCPOA to think about where we may be on its second anniversary. By then, we will have a new president. Donald Trump has not laid out anything close to a coherent approach to the Middle East, nor does he have any ... At the time that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran was being debated here in Washington, I felt that the terms of the deal were far less consequential than how the United States responded to Iranian regional behavior after a ... https://www.brookings.edu/2016/07/14/the-iran-deal-one-year-out-what-brookings-experts-are-saying/The Iran deal, one year out: What Brookings experts are sayinghttp://webfeeds.brookings.edu/~/171790018/0/brookingsrss/topics/saudiarabia~The-Iran-deal-one-year-out-What-Brookings-experts-are-saying/
Thu, 14 Jul 2016 13:54:00 +0000http://www.brookings.edu?p=160451&preview_id=160451How has the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)—signed between the P5+1 and Iran one year ago—played out in practice? Several Brookings scholars, many of whom participated prominently in debates last year as the deal was reaching its final stages, offered their views.

]]>
How has the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)—signed between the P5+1 and Iran one year ago—played out in practice? Several Brookings scholars, many of whom participated prominently in debates last year surrounding official congressional review, offered their views.

Strobe Talbott, President, Brookings Institution:

At the one-year mark, it’s clear that the nuclear agreement between Iran and the major powers has substantially restricted Tehran’s ability to produce the fissile material necessary to build a bomb. That’s a net positive—for the United States and the broader region.

Robert Einhorn, Senior Fellow, Center for 21st Century Security and Intelligence and Senior Fellow, Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Initiative, Foreign Policy program:

One year after its conclusion, the JCPOA remains controversial in Tehran and Washington (as I describe in more detail here), with opponents unreconciled to the deal and determined to derail it. But opponents have had to scale back their criticism, in large part because the JCPOA, at least so far, has delivered on its principal goal—blocking Iran’s path to nuclear weapons for an extended period of time. Moreover, Iran’s positive compliance record has not given opponents much ammunition. The IAEA found Iran in compliance in its two quarterly reports issued in 2016.

But challenges to the smooth operation and even the longevity of the deal are already apparent.

A real threat to the JCPOA is that Iran will blame the slow recovery of its economy on U.S. failure to conscientiously fulfill its sanctions relief commitments and, using that as a pretext, will curtail or even end its own implementation of the deal. But international banks and businesses have been reluctant to engage Iran not because they have been discouraged by the United States but because they have their own business-related reasons to be cautious. Legislation proposed in Congress could also threaten the nuclear deal.

For now, the administration is in a position to block new legislation that it believes would scuttle the deal. But developments outside the JCPOA, especially Iran’s regional behavior and its crackdown on dissent at home, could weaken support for the JCPOA within the United States and give proponents of deal-killing legislation a boost.

A potential wildcard for the future of the JCPOA is coming governing transitions in both Washington and Tehran. Hillary Clinton would maintain the deal but perhaps a harder line than her predecessor. Donald Trump now says he will re-negotiate rather than scrap the deal, but a better deal will not prove negotiable. With President Hassan Rouhani up for re-election next year and the health of the Supreme Leader questionable, Iran’s future policy toward the JCPOA cannot be confidently predicted.

A final verdict on the JCPOA is many years away. But it is off to a promising start, as even some of its early critics now concede. Still, it is already clear that the path ahead will not always be smooth, the longevity of the deal cannot be taken for granted, and keeping it on track will require constant focus in Washington and other interested capitals.

The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action has fulfilled neither the worst fears of its detractors nor the most soaring ambitions of its proponents. All of the concerns that have shaped U.S. policy toward Tehran for more than a generation—terrorism, human rights abuses, weapons of mass destruction, regional destabilization—remain as relevant, and as alarming, as they have ever been. Notably, much the same is true on the Iranian side; the manifold grievances that Tehran has harbored toward Washington since the 1979 revolution continue to smolder.

An important truth about the JCPOA, which has been wielded by both its defenders and its detractors in varying contexts, is that it was transactional, not transformational. As President Barack Obama repeatedly insisted, the accord addressed one specific problem, and in those narrow terms, it can be judged a relative success. The value of that relative success should not be underestimated; a nuclear-armed Iran would magnify risks in a turbulent region in a terrible way.

But in the United States, in Iran, and across the Middle East, the agreement has always been viewed through a much broader lens—as a waystation toward Iranian-American rapprochement, as an instrument for addressing the vicious cycle of sectarian violence that threatens to consume the region, as a boost to the greater cause of moderation and democratization in Iran. And so the failure of the deal to catalyze greater cooperation from Iran on a range of other priorities—Syria, Yemen, Iraq, to name a few—or to jumpstart improvements in Iran’s domestic dynamics cannot be disregarded simply because it was not its original intent.

For the “new normal” of regularized diplomatic contact between Washington and Tehran to yield dividends, the United States will need a serious strategy toward Tehran that transcends the JCPOA, building on the efficacy of the hard-won multilateral collaboration on the nuclear issue. Iranians, too, must begin to pivot the focus of their efforts away from endless litigation of the nuclear deal and toward a more constructive approach to addressing the deep challenges facing their country today.

As I explain more fully here, one unintended but very important consequence of the Iran nuclear deal has been to aggravate and intensify Saudi Arabia’s concerns about Iran’s regional goals and intentions. This fueling of Saudi fears has in turn fanned sectarian tensions in the region to unprecedented levels, and the results are likely to haunt the region for years to come.

Riyadh’s concerns about Iran have never been primarily focused on the nuclear danger. Rather, the key Saudi concern is that Iran seeks regional hegemony and uses terrorism and subversion to achieve it. The deal deliberately does not deal with this issue. In Saudi eyes, it actually makes the situation worse because lifting sanctions removed Iran’s isolation as a rogue state and gives it more income.

Washington has tried hard to reassure the Saudis, and President Obama has wisely sought to build confidence with King Salman and his young son. The Iran deal is a good one, and I’ve supported it from its inception. But it has had consequences that are dangerous and alarming. In the end, Riyadh and Tehran are the only players who can deescalate the situation—the Saudis show no sign of interest in that road.

Norman Eisen, Visiting Fellow, Governance Studies:

The biggest disappointment of the post-deal year has been the failure of Congress to pass legislation complementing the JCPOA. There is a great deal that the legislative branch could do to support the pact. Above all, it could establish criteria putting teeth into U.S. enforcement of Preamble Section III, Iran’s pledge never to seek nuclear weapons. Congress could and should make clear what the ramp to seeking nuclear weapons would look like, what the triggers would be for U.S. action, and what kinds of U.S. action would be on the table. If Iran knows that, it will modulate its behavior accordingly. If it does not, it will start to act out, and we have just kicked the can down the road. That delay is of course immensely valuable—but why not extend the road indefinitely? Congress can do that, and much more (e.g. by increasing funding for JCPOA oversight by the administration and the IAEA), with appropriate legislation.

Over the past year, much effort has gone into ensuring that the Iran deal is fully implemented. To date, the P5+1 has—not surprisingly—gotten the better end of the bargain, with significant security benefits accruing to them and their partners in the Middle East once the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verified the required changes to Iran’s nuclear program. Iran, for its part, has experienced a natural lag in its economic resurgence, held back by the collapse in oil prices in 2014, residual American and European sanctions, and reluctance among banks and businesses to re-engage.

But, Iran’s economy has stabilized and—if the deal holds for its full measure—the security benefits that the P5+1 and their partners have won may fall away while Iran’s economy continues to grow. The most important challenge related to the deal for the next U.S. administration (and, presumably, the Rouhani administration in its second term) is therefore: how can it be taken forward, beyond the 10- to 15-year transition period? Iran will face internal pressure to expand its nuclear program, but it also will face pressure to refrain both externally and internally, should other countries in the region seek to create their own matching nuclear capabilities.

The best next step for all sides is to negotiate a region-wide arrangement to manage nuclear programs –one that constrains all sides, though perhaps not equally. It must ensure—at a minimum—that nuclear developments in the region are predictable, understandable, and credibly civilian (something Bob Einhorn and I addressed in a recent report). The next White House will need to do the hard work of convincing countries in the region—and beyond—not to rest on the victory of the JCPOA. Rather, they must take it for what it is: another step towards a more stable and manageable region.

This week, Washington is awash in events and policy papers taking stock of how the Iran nuclear deal has changed the Middle East in the past year. The narratives presented this week largely track the positions that the authors, speakers, or organizations articulated on the nuclear deal when it was first concluded last summer. Those who opposed the deal have marshaled evidence of how the deal has “emboldened” Iran’s destabilizing behavior, while those who supported the deal cite evidence of “moderated” politics in the Islamic Republic. That polarized views on the deal last year produce polarized assessments of the deal’s impact this year should surprise no one.

In fact, no matter which side of the nuclear agreement’s worth it presents, much of the analysis out this week ascribes to the nuclear deal Iranian behavior and attitudes in the region that existed before the deal’s conclusion and implementation. Iran has been a revisionist state, and a state sponsor of terrorism, since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. The Saudi-Iranian rivalry predates the revolution; Iran’s backing of Houthi militias against Saudi and its allies in Yemen well predates the nuclear agreement. Most notably, the upheavals in the Arab world since 2011 have given Iran wider opportunities than perhaps ever before to exploit the cracks within Arab societies—and to use cash, militias, and other tools to advance its interests and expand its influence. Iran has exploited those opportunities skillfully in the last five years and, as I wrote last summer, was likely to continue to do so regardless of diplomatic success or failure in Vienna. To argue that the nuclear deal somehow created these problems, or could solve them, is ahistorical.

It is true that Iran’s access to global markets might free even more cash for these endeavors, and that is a real issue worth tracking. But since severe sanctions did not prevent Iran from spending hundreds of millions of dollars to support and supply Hezbollah, or marshaling Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and militia fighters to sustain the faltering regime of Bashar Assad in Syria, it’s not clear that additional cash will generate a meaningful difference in regional outcomes. Certainly, the nuclear deal’s conclusion and implementation did not alter the trajectory of Iranian policy in Yemen, Iraq, Syria, or Lebanon to any noticeable degree—and that means that, no matter what the merits or dangers of the JCPOA, the United States must still confront and work to resolve enduring challenges to regional instability—including Iran’s revisionist behavior.

When the JCPOA was being debated last year, I felt that the terms of the deal were far less consequential than how the United States responded to Iranian regional behavior after a deal was signed. I see the events of the past 12 months as largely having borne that out. While both sides have accused the other of “cheating,” the deal has so far largely held. However, as many of my colleagues have noted, the real frictions have arisen from the U.S. geostrategic response to the deal.

I continue to believe that signing the JCPOA was better than any of the realistic alternatives—though I also continue to believe that a better deal was possible, had the administration handled the negotiations differently. However, the administration’s regional approach since then has been problematic—with officials condemning Riyadh and excusing Tehran in circumstances where both were culpable and ignoring some major Iranian transgressions, for instance (and with President Obama gratuitously insulting the Saudis and other U.S. allies in interviews).

America’s traditional Sunni Arab allies (and to some extent Turkey and Israel) feared that either the United States would use the JCPOA as an excuse to further disengage from the region or to switch sides and join the Iranian coalition. Their reading of events has been that this is precisely what has happened, and it is causing the GCC states to act more aggressively.

I think our traditional allies would enthusiastically welcome a Hillary Clinton presidency. She would likely do all that she could to reassure them that she plans to be more engaged and more willing to commit American resources and energy to Middle Eastern problems. But those allies will eventually look for her to turn words into action. I cannot imagine a Hillary Clinton administration abrogating the JCPOA, imposing significant new economic sanctions on Iran, or otherwise acting in ways that it would fear could provoke Tehran to break the deal. Our allies may see that as Washington trying to remain on the fence, which will infuriate them.

So there are some important strategic differences between the United States and its regional allies. The second anniversary of the JCPOA could therefore prove even more fraught for America and the Middle East than the first.

Get daily updates from Brookings

Enter Email

]]>
UncategorizedHow has the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)—signed between the P5+1 and Iran one year ago—played out in practice? Several Brookings scholars, many of whom participated prominently in debates last year surrounding official congressional review, offered their views.
Strobe Talbott, President, Brookings Institution:
At the one-year mark, it’s clear that the nuclear agreement between Iran and the major powers has substantially restricted Tehran’s ability to produce the fissile material necessary to build a bomb. That’s a net positive—for the United States and the broader region.
Robert Einhorn, Senior Fellow, Center for 21st Century Security and Intelligence and Senior Fellow, Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Initiative, Foreign Policy program:
One year after its conclusion, the JCPOA remains controversial in Tehran and Washington (as I describe in more detail here), with opponents unreconciled to the deal and determined to derail it. But opponents have had to scale back their criticism, in large part because the JCPOA, at least so far, has delivered on its principal goal—blocking Iran’s path to nuclear weapons for an extended period of time. Moreover, Iran’s positive compliance record has not given opponents much ammunition. The IAEA found Iran in compliance in its two quarterly reports issued in 2016.
But challenges to the smooth operation and even the longevity of the deal are already apparent.
A real threat to the JCPOA is that Iran will blame the slow recovery of its economy on U.S. failure to conscientiously fulfill its sanctions relief commitments and, using that as a pretext, will curtail or even end its own implementation of the deal. But international banks and businesses have been reluctant to engage Iran not because they have been discouraged by the United States but because they have their own business-related reasons to be cautious. Legislation proposed in Congress could also threaten the nuclear deal.
For now, the administration is in a position to block new legislation that it believes would scuttle the deal. But developments outside the JCPOA, especially Iran’s regional behavior and its crackdown on dissent at home, could weaken support for the JCPOA within the United States and give proponents of deal-killing legislation a boost.
A potential wildcard for the future of the JCPOA is coming governing transitions in both Washington and Tehran. Hillary Clinton would maintain the deal but perhaps a harder line than her predecessor. Donald Trump now says he will re-negotiate rather than scrap the deal, but a better deal will not prove negotiable. With President Hassan Rouhani up for re-election next year and the health of the Supreme Leader questionable, Iran’s future policy toward the JCPOA cannot be confidently predicted.
A final verdict on the JCPOA is many years away. But it is off to a promising start, as even some of its early critics now concede. Still, it is already clear that the path ahead will not always be smooth, the longevity of the deal cannot be taken for granted, and keeping it on track will require constant focus in Washington and other interested capitals.
Suzanne Maloney, Deputy Director, Foreign Policy program and Senior Fellow, Center for Middle East Policy, Foreign Policy program:
The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action has fulfilled neither the worst fears of its detractors nor the most soaring ambitions of its proponents. All of the concerns that have shaped U.S. policy toward Tehran for more than a generation—terrorism, human rights abuses, weapons of mass destruction, regional destabilization—remain as relevant, and as alarming, as they have ever been. Notably, much the same is true on the Iranian side; the manifold grievances that Tehran has harbored toward Washington since the 1979 revolution continue to ... How has the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)—signed between the P5+1 and Iran one year ago—played out in practice? Several Brookings scholars, many of whom participated prominently in debates last year https://www.brookings.edu/2016/07/13/what-the-iran-deal-has-meant-for-saudi-arabia-and-regional-tensions/What the Iran deal has meant for Saudi Arabia and regional tensionshttp://webfeeds.brookings.edu/~/171790032/0/brookingsrss/topics/saudiarabia~What-the-Iran-deal-has-meant-for-Saudi-Arabia-and-regional-tensions/
Wed, 13 Jul 2016 14:59:00 +0000http://www.brookings.edu?p=160445&preview_id=160445One unintended but very important consequence of the Iran nuclear deal has been to aggravate and intensify Saudi Arabia's concerns about Iran's regional goals and intentions. This fueling of Saudi fears has in turn fanned sectarian tensions in the region to unprecedented levels.

]]>
One unintended but very important consequence of the Iran nuclear deal has been to aggravate and intensify Saudi Arabia’s concerns about Iran’s regional goals and intentions. This fueling of Saudi fears has in turn fanned sectarian tensions in the region to unprecedented levels.

Of course stoking Saudi angst and perhaps even paranoia was not the intention of the deal’s negotiators. They sought to reduce tensions and prevent a nuclear arms race. A combination of circumstances outside their control exacerbated the problem of Saudi-Iranian rivalry that dates back before the Iranian revolution. But the results are likely to haunt the region for years to come.

An array of worries

Riyadh’s concerns about Iran have never been primarily focused on the nuclear danger. The Saudis have long calculated the risk of Iranian use of nuclear weapons as low. They also believe the American nuclear umbrella protects them. The key Saudi concern is their belief that Iran seeks regional hegemony and uses terrorism and subversion to achieve it.

The deal deliberately does not deal with this issue. In Saudi eyes it actually makes the situation worse, because lifting sanctions removed Iran’s isolation as a rogue state and gives it more income. Iran’s ambition to be the region’s hegemon is fueled not reduced by the deal.

The debate over the deal that ended a year ago coincided with two key developments in the Kingdom in early 2015. First was the succession of King Salman Abd al Aziz. His predecessor and half-brother Abdullah was a hardliner on Iran, but he was also risk-averse and cautious by nature. He had experimented with detente with Iran in the 1980s, even sending a Saudi Shiite as ambassador to Tehran. He wanted American soldiers to deal with Iran, not Saudis, a posture that greatly irritated Americans like former Secretary of Defense Bob Gates who likened it to using his soldiers as mercenaries. King Abdullah sought to avoid confrontation not embrace it.

The second coincidence was the takeover of the Yemeni capital Sanaa by the alliance of Zaydi Shiite Houthi rebels and former President Ali Abdullah Saleh early last year. The rebels opened direct air links to Tehran and proposed other concessions to Iran. They marched on the southern port of Aden, Sunni territory. Iran hailed their victories. The Saudis and other Gulf states saw an Iranian foothold emerging in the Achilles heel of the Arabian Peninsula.

The new king and his young Defense Minister Prince Muhammad bin Salman reacted angrily and firmly. An Arab coalition was created rapidly to intervene and fight the rebels. The result, Operation Decisive Storm, was distinctly unlike anything in recent Saudi history. Bold and aggressive in design, it stopped the rebels’ advance and prevented any Iranian intrusion into Yemen—but it also created a humanitarian disaster and a bloody stalemate. The United States and United Kingdom, eager to quiet Saudi objections to the nuclear deal, provided crucial support to the Saudi war. Pakistan, a longtime ally with a large Shiite minority, voted unanimously in parliament to stay out because it was worried about intensified sectarianism.

A year ago Saudi intelligence renditioned Ahmed Mughassil after he debarked from a flight from Tehran to Beirut. The Saudi Shiite Mughassil was the mastermind of the Khobar attack twenty years ago in Saudi Arabia that killed nineteen American airmen. He was also involved in the assassination of several Saudi diplomats in the 1980s. He is the epitome of Iranian support and direction of terror. No doubt his interrogation has underscored Saudi concern about Iran’s clandestine actions in the Gulf.

In January this year, the Saudis executed a prominent Shite dissident for allegedly supporting terrorism. An Iranian mob attacked the Saudi embassy—probably encouraged by regime hardliners—and then the Saudis broke diplomatic relations. Since then, Riyadh has encouraged its allies to follow suit. Iranian pilgrims will not attend this year’s Hajj.

Saudi concern about Iranian conspiracies is reaching new heights. At least one prominent Saudi commentator has argued the terrorist attack on the Prophet’s Mosque in Medina on July 4th was a false flag operation controlled by Iranian intelligence to discredit the king’s standing as the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques. His column is getting wide attention.

Entrenched position?

The combination of a new leadership in Riyadh that is more prepared to take firm action and the crisis in Yemen have added to Saudi disagreement over the Iran deal. As the Pakistanis feared, it has polarized an already deeply divided Muslim world. The Islamic State and al-Qaida benefit from the Muslim Cold War and the escalating sectarian violence.

Washington has tried hard to reassure the Saudis that they are not alone in their legitimate concerns about Iran’s terrorist activities and destabilizing subversion. President Obama has wisely sought to build confidence with the king and his young son. The Iran deal is a good one, and I’ve supported it from its inception.

But it has had consequences that are dangerous and alarming. In the end, Riyadh and Tehran are the only players who can deescalate the situation. The Saudis show no sign of interest in that road.

]]>
UncategorizedOne unintended but very important consequence of the Iran nuclear deal has been to aggravate and intensify Saudi Arabia's concerns about Iran's regional goals and intentions. This fueling of Saudi fears has in turn fanned sectarian tensions in the region to unprecedented levels.
Of course stoking Saudi angst and perhaps even paranoia was not the intention of the deal’s negotiators. They sought to reduce tensions and prevent a nuclear arms race. A combination of circumstances outside their control exacerbated the problem of Saudi-Iranian rivalry that dates back before the Iranian revolution. But the results are likely to haunt the region for years to come.
An array of worries
Riyadh's concerns about Iran have never been primarily focused on the nuclear danger. The Saudis have long calculated the risk of Iranian use of nuclear weapons as low. They also believe the American nuclear umbrella protects them. The key Saudi concern is their belief that Iran seeks regional hegemony and uses terrorism and subversion to achieve it.
The deal deliberately does not deal with this issue. In Saudi eyes it actually makes the situation worse, because lifting sanctions removed Iran's isolation as a rogue state and gives it more income. Iran's ambition to be the region's hegemon is fueled not reduced by the deal.
The debate over the deal that ended a year ago coincided with two key developments in the Kingdom in early 2015. First was the succession of King Salman Abd al Aziz. His predecessor and half-brother Abdullah was a hardliner on Iran, but he was also risk-averse and cautious by nature. He had experimented with detente with Iran in the 1980s, even sending a Saudi Shiite as ambassador to Tehran. He wanted American soldiers to deal with Iran, not Saudis, a posture that greatly irritated Americans like former Secretary of Defense Bob Gates who likened it to using his soldiers as mercenaries. King Abdullah sought to avoid confrontation not embrace it.
The second coincidence was the takeover of the Yemeni capital Sanaa by the alliance of Zaydi Shiite Houthi rebels and former President Ali Abdullah Saleh early last year. The rebels opened direct air links to Tehran and proposed other concessions to Iran. They marched on the southern port of Aden, Sunni territory. Iran hailed their victories. The Saudis and other Gulf states saw an Iranian foothold emerging in the Achilles heel of the Arabian Peninsula.
The new king and his young Defense Minister Prince Muhammad bin Salman reacted angrily and firmly. An Arab coalition was created rapidly to intervene and fight the rebels. The result, Operation Decisive Storm, was distinctly unlike anything in recent Saudi history. Bold and aggressive in design, it stopped the rebels’ advance and prevented any Iranian intrusion into Yemen—but it also created a humanitarian disaster and a bloody stalemate. The United States and United Kingdom, eager to quiet Saudi objections to the nuclear deal, provided crucial support to the Saudi war. Pakistan, a longtime ally with a large Shiite minority, voted unanimously in parliament to stay out because it was worried about intensified sectarianism.
A year ago Saudi intelligence renditioned Ahmed Mughassil after he debarked from a flight from Tehran to Beirut. The Saudi Shiite Mughassil was the mastermind of the Khobar attack twenty years ago in Saudi Arabia that killed nineteen American airmen. He was also involved in the assassination of several Saudi diplomats in the 1980s. He is the epitome of Iranian support and direction of terror. No doubt his interrogation has underscored Saudi concern about Iran's clandestine actions in the Gulf.
In January this year, the Saudis executed a prominent Shite dissident for allegedly supporting terrorism. An Iranian mob attacked the Saudi embassy—probably encouraged by regime hardliners—and then the Saudis broke diplomatic relations. Since then, Riyadh has encouraged its allies to ... One unintended but very important consequence of the Iran nuclear deal has been to aggravate and intensify Saudi Arabia's concerns about Iran's regional goals and intentions. This fueling of Saudi fears has in turn fanned sectarian tensions in the ... https://www.brookings.edu/podcast-episode/civil-wars-and-u-s-engagement-in-the-middle-east/Civil wars and U.S. engagement in the Middle Easthttp://webfeeds.brookings.edu/~/171794504/0/brookingsrss/topics/saudiarabia~Civil-wars-and-US-engagement-in-the-Middle-East/
Mon, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000http://www.brookings.edu?p=81602&post_type=podcast-episode&preview_id=81602In this episode of “Intersections,” Kenneth Pollack, senior fellow in the Center for Middle East Policy and Shadi Hamid, senior fellow in the Project on U.S. Relations with the Islamic World and author of "Islamic Exceptionalism: How the Struggle over Islam is Reshaping the World," discuss the current state of upheaval in the Middle East, the Arab Spring, and how and why the United States should change its approach to the Middle East.

]]>
“At the end of the day, we need to remember that Daesh is more a product of the civil wars than it is a cause of them. And the way that we’re behaving is we’re treating it as the cause. And the problem is that in places like Syria, in Iraq, potentially in Libya, we are mounting these military campaigns to destroy Daesh and we’re not doing anything about the underlying civil wars. And the real danger there is—we have a brilliant military and they may very well succeed in destroying Daesh—but if we haven’t dealt with the underlying civil wars, we’ll have Son of Daesh a year later.” – Ken Pollack

“Part of the problem is how we want the U.S. to be more engaged and more involved and what that requires in practice. We have to be honest about a different kind of American role in the Middle East. It means committing considerable economic and political resources to this region of the world that a lot of Americans are quite frankly sick of… There is this aspect of nation-building that is in part what we have to do in the Middle East, help these countries rebuild, but we can’t do that on the cheap. We can’t do that with this relatively hands off approach.” – Shadi Hamid

]]>
“At the end of the day, we need to remember that Daesh is more a product of the civil wars than it is a cause of them. And the way that we’re behaving is we’re treating it as the cause. And the problem is that in places like Syria, in Iraq, potentially in Libya, we are mounting these military campaigns to destroy Daesh and we’re not doing anything about the underlying civil wars. And the real danger there is—we have a brilliant military and they may very well succeed in destroying Daesh—but if we haven’t dealt with the underlying civil wars, we’ll have Son of Daesh a year later.” – Ken Pollack
“Part of the problem is how we want the U.S. to be more engaged and more involved and what that requires in practice. We have to be honest about a different kind of American role in the Middle East. It means committing considerable economic and political resources to this region of the world that a lot of Americans are quite frankly sick of… There is this aspect of nation-building that is in part what we have to do in the Middle East, help these countries rebuild, but we can’t do that on the cheap. We can’t do that with this relatively hands off approach.” – Shadi Hamid
In this episode of “Intersections,” Kenneth Pollack, senior fellow in the Center for Middle East Policy and Shadi Hamid, senior fellow in the Project on U.S. Relations with the Islamic World and author of “Islamic Exceptionalism: How the Struggle over Islam is Reshaping the World,” discuss the current state of upheaval in the Middle East, the Arab Spring, and the political durability of Islamist movements in the region. They also explain their ideas on how and why the United States should change its approach to the Middle East and areas of potential improvement for U.S. foreign policy in the region.
Show Notes
Fight or flight: America’s choice in the Middle East
Security and public order
Islamists on Islamism today
Temptations of Power: Islamists & Illiberal Democracy in a New Middle East
Ending the Middle East’s civil wars
A Rage for Order: The Middle East in turmoil, from Tahrir Square to ISIS
Building a better Syrian opposition army: How and why
With thanks to audio engineer and producer Zack Kulzer, Mark Hoelscher, Carisa Nietsche, Sara Abdel-Rahim, Eric Abalahin, Fred Dews and Richard Fawal.
Subscribe to the Intersections on iTunes, and send feedback email to intersections@brookings.edu. “At the end of the day, we need to remember that Daesh is more a product of the civil wars than it is a cause of them. And the way that we’re behaving is we’re treating it as the cause. And the problem is that in places ... https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/what-wave-of-suicide-attacks-means-for-riyadhs-anti-terror-efforts/What wave of suicide attacks means for Riyadh’s anti-terror effortshttp://webfeeds.brookings.edu/~/171790058/0/brookingsrss/topics/saudiarabia~What-wave-of-suicide-attacks-means-for-Riyadhs-antiterror-efforts/
Mon, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000http://www.brookings.edu?p=131583&post_type=opinion&preview_id=131583King Salman bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud has a long-established record of leading popular campaigns to raise funds for Islamic causes, writes Bruce Riedel. Saudi Arabia has been accused of poor oversight of such funding with some money ending up in terrorist hands. While it has made considerable progress on this issue, more still needs to be done. The three bomb attacks July 4 should encourage the king to take tougher measures to combat terrorism funding at home, Riedel argues.

]]>
King Salman bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud has a long-established record of leading popular campaigns to raise funds for Islamic causes, writes Bruce Riedel. Saudi Arabia has been accused of poor oversight of such funding with some money ending up in terrorist hands. While it has made considerable progress on this issue, more still needs to be done. The three bomb attacks July 4 should encourage the king to take tougher measures to combat terrorism funding at home, Riedel argues.

]]>
King Salman bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud has a long-established record of leading popular campaigns to raise funds for Islamic causes, writes Bruce Riedel. Saudi Arabia has been accused of poor oversight of such funding with some money ending up in terrorist hands. While it has made considerable progress on this issue, more still needs to be done. The three bomb attacks July 4 should encourage the king to take tougher measures to combat terrorism funding at home, Riedel argues.King Salman bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud has a long-established record of leading popular campaigns to raise funds for Islamic causes, writes Bruce Riedel. Saudi Arabia has been accused of poor oversight of such funding with some money ending up in ... https://www.brookings.edu/2016/06/22/is-the-iranian-saudi-cold-war-heating-up-how-to-reduce-the-temperature/Is the Iranian-Saudi “cold war” heating up? How to reduce the temperaturehttp://webfeeds.brookings.edu/~/171792930/0/brookingsrss/topics/saudiarabia~Is-the-IranianSaudi-%e2%80%9ccold-war%e2%80%9d-heating-up-How-to-reduce-the-temperature/
Wed, 22 Jun 2016 17:43:00 +0000http://www.brookings.edu?p=96365&preview_id=96365In Saudi Arabia and Iran, emotions are running high, and even an accidental spark could turn the cold war between the two regional powers hot. Their antagonism is a grave threat to the wider region, which isn’t exactly a bastion of stability these days—and it’s contrary to those states' long-term interests.

]]>
While Saudi-Iranian tensions have been on the rise for years, Saudi Arabia’s execution of Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr in January—met with angry reactions in Iran—heightened the stakes so dramatically that there is now serious potential for direct confrontation. Emotions are running high, and even an accidental spark could turn the cold war between the two regional powers hot. Their antagonism is a grave threat to the wider region, which isn’t exactly a bastion of stability these days—and it’s contrary to the long-term interests of Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Muhammad bin Salman, Saudi Arabia’s Deputy Crown Prince and Minister of Defense, stressed in a January interview with The Economist that “a war between Saudi Arabia and Iran [would be] the beginning of a major catastrophe in the region,” adding: “For sure we will not allow any such thing.”

The prince is right—an outright Saudi-Iranian conflict would quickly spiral into a region-wide conflagration with gravely destabilizing effects on the Middle East and beyond. Yet the provocative rhetoric and actions of leaders on both sides continue to fan the flames.

Both sides must work to reduce the temperature and address the root causes of the tension. There are three main considerations that should inform the approach:

First, each misunderstands the other. While Iranian-Emirati and Iranian-Omani relations are based on dialogue and exchange, Iranian-Saudi relations are based on misunderstanding, ignorance, and isolation. Combined with heightened sectarian prejudice, which has emerged largely in the fertile landscape for hatred and division sown by the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, the long-running enmity between the two nations has only worsened.

Second, due to Iran being isolated and sanctioned ever since its 1979 revolution, a network of militia leaders, mujahedeen, intelligence agencies, and high-ranking clerics have been able to hijack the state. Rather than pursue national interests such as improving regional cooperation or increasing inward investment, Iranian foreign policy has largely served the private interests of that network. These actors have the most to lose as Iran becomes more open, as their space to maneuver in the shadows would be reduced. In Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the Arab world, observers tend to perceive Iran’s actions in the region as targeting Saudi Arabia. But often, Iran’s intent is to enrich that shadowy network. The Saudis and Arabs more broadly should support the lifting of sanctions, since it will squeeze those actors in Iran—yet what we see is the opposite. Saudi Arabia could help empower those who genuinely want reform in Iran by encouraging more openness.

Third, Iran-Saudi tensions are kept alive by the ever-narrowing space between religious institutions and policymakers in Saudi Arabia. The problem for the House of Saud is that its legitimacy is derived from its custodianship of Mecca and Medina—it needs to appease the clerics, who have unfortunately slid into divisive sectarian rhetoric. The late King Abdullah made steps to distance the state from the clergy, but King Salman’s monarchical arrangement is different, resulting in a shift back toward the clerics.

From vicious to virtuous cycle

To head off outright confrontation, Saudi Arabia and Iran need to identify potential areas of shared interest. Both states’ economies are dependent on oil, and both are working to reduce that reliance. To some extent, each country’s economy depends on the other’s success. Both are targeted by the same terror groups, including al-Qaida and the Islamic State. And the countries face similar environmental threats, including oil spills, challenges related to accelerated industrialization, and water shortages. In all of these areas, Iran and Saudi Arabia can work together.

It won’t be easy, but there are helpful historical examples. Seventy years ago, no one could have imagined France, Germany, and Britain overcoming their regional rivalries to become close political and economic partners. And there are constructive roles for outside powers: Europe, for example, could facilitate more dialogue on religious tolerance in the Middle East, focusing on the 2004 Amman Message that all Muslims have common interests and can unite. Europe can also be more vigilant in ensuring that divisive sectarian clerics do not abuse their political asylum by using it as a platform to broadcast incendiary misinformation and propaganda that often crosses the line into hate speech. Meanwhile, multi-track diplomacy and various types of cultural, educational, and social exchanges between Saudis, Iranians, and others can help break down the barriers of misunderstanding and prejudice.

War between Iran and Saudi Arabia is not inevitable, but both sides must take steps now to turn down the heat. At the end of the day, it is in neither state’s interest to let their already poor relations spiral further downward.

]]>
UncategorizedWhile Saudi-Iranian tensions have been on the rise for years, Saudi Arabia’s execution of Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr in January—met with angry reactions in Iran—heightened the stakes so dramatically that there is now serious potential for direct confrontation. Emotions are running high, and even an accidental spark could turn the cold war between the two regional powers hot. Their antagonism is a grave threat to the wider region, which isn’t exactly a bastion of stability these days—and it’s contrary to the long-term interests of Saudi Arabia and Iran.
Muhammad bin Salman, Saudi Arabia’s Deputy Crown Prince and Minister of Defense, stressed in a January interview with The Economist that “a war between Saudi Arabia and Iran [would be] the beginning of a major catastrophe in the region,” adding: “For sure we will not allow any such thing.”
The prince is right—an outright Saudi-Iranian conflict would quickly spiral into a region-wide conflagration with gravely destabilizing effects on the Middle East and beyond. Yet the provocative rhetoric and actions of leaders on both sides continue to fan the flames.
Both sides must work to reduce the temperature and address the root causes of the tension. There are three main considerations that should inform the approach:
- First, each misunderstands the other. While Iranian-Emirati and Iranian-Omani relations are based on dialogue and exchange, Iranian-Saudi relations are based on misunderstanding, ignorance, and isolation. Combined with heightened sectarian prejudice, which has emerged largely in the fertile landscape for hatred and division sown by the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, the long-running enmity between the two nations has only worsened. - Second, due to Iran being isolated and sanctioned ever since its 1979 revolution, a network of militia leaders, mujahedeen, intelligence agencies, and high-ranking clerics have been able to hijack the state. Rather than pursue national interests such as improving regional cooperation or increasing inward investment, Iranian foreign policy has largely served the private interests of that network. These actors have the most to lose as Iran becomes more open, as their space to maneuver in the shadows would be reduced. In Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the Arab world, observers tend to perceive Iran’s actions in the region as targeting Saudi Arabia. But often, Iran’s intent is to enrich that shadowy network. The Saudis and Arabs more broadly should support the lifting of sanctions, since it will squeeze those actors in Iran—yet what we see is the opposite. Saudi Arabia could help empower those who genuinely want reform in Iran by encouraging more openness. - Third, Iran-Saudi tensions are kept alive by the ever-narrowing space between religious institutions and policymakers in Saudi Arabia. The problem for the House of Saud is that its legitimacy is derived from its custodianship of Mecca and Medina—it needs to appease the clerics, who have unfortunately slid into divisive sectarian rhetoric. The late King Abdullah made steps to distance the state from the clergy, but King Salman’s monarchical arrangement is different, resulting in a shift back toward the clerics.
Related
- Campaigns & Elections
What the 2016 U.S. presidential election means for the Middle East John Hudak Monday, February 22, 2016 - Markaz
Fight or flight: America’s choice in the Middle East Kenneth M Pollack Tuesday, February 16, 2016 - Islamist Movements
Profiling Jabhat al-Nusra Charles Lister Wednesday, July 27, 2016
From vicious to virtuous cycle
To head off outright confrontation, Saudi Arabia and Iran need to identify potential areas of shared interest. Both states’ economies are dependent on oil, and both are working to reduce that reliance. To some extent, each country’s economy depends on the ... While Saudi-Iranian tensions have been on the rise for years, Saudi Arabia’s execution of Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr in January—met with angry reactions in Iran—heightened the stakes so dramatically that there is now serious potential ... https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/salmans-saudi-arabia-more-ambitious-than-ever/Salman’s Saudi Arabia more ambitious than everhttp://webfeeds.brookings.edu/~/171790084/0/brookingsrss/topics/saudiarabia~Salmans-Saudi-Arabia-more-ambitious-than-ever/
Mon, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000http://www.brookings.edu?p=131575&post_type=opinion&preview_id=131575King Salman bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud's time on the throne has been marked by a more aggressive and expansionist foreign policy, marked by escalating activity with Egypt, Yemen, Iran, and other Arab partners, writes Bruce Riedel. Whether or not his gambles pay off in the long-run, for now it is clear that over the last 18 months, Saudi Arabia has gained some strategic terrain in the Middle East, Riedel argues.

]]>
King Salman bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud's time on the throne has been marked by a more aggressive and expansionist foreign policy, marked by escalating activity with Egypt, Yemen, Iran, and other Arab partners, writes Bruce Riedel. Whether or not his gambles pay off in the long-run, for now it is clear that over the last 18 months, Saudi Arabia has gained some strategic terrain in the Middle East, Riedel argues.

]]>
King Salman bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud's time on the throne has been marked by a more aggressive and expansionist foreign policy, marked by escalating activity with Egypt, Yemen, Iran, and other Arab partners, writes Bruce Riedel. Whether or not his gambles pay off in the long-run, for now it is clear that over the last 18 months, Saudi Arabia has gained some strategic terrain in the Middle East, Riedel argues.King Salman bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud's time on the throne has been marked by a more aggressive and expansionist foreign policy, marked by escalating activity with Egypt, Yemen, Iran, and other Arab partners, writes Bruce Riedel.https://www.brookings.edu/2016/06/16/the-political-implications-of-transforming-saudi-and-iranian-oil-economies/The political implications of transforming Saudi and Iranian oil economieshttp://webfeeds.brookings.edu/~/171792932/0/brookingsrss/topics/saudiarabia~The-political-implications-of-transforming-Saudi-and-Iranian-oil-economies/
Mon, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000http://www.brookings.edu?p=96319&preview_id=96319Both Saudi Arabia and Iran are conspicuously planning for a post-oil future. The centrality of oil to the legitimacy and autonomy of both regimes means that these plans are little more than publicity stunts. Still, just imagine for a moment what it would mean for Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the Middle East if these grandiose agendas were adopted.

]]>
Saudi deputy crown prince and defense minister Mohammad bin Salman is just wrapping up a heavily hyped visit to Washington, aimed at reinforcing the kingdom’s partnership with the United States. Recent years have frayed what is traditionally the central strategic relationship for Riyadh, principally over the Obama administration’s nuclear diplomacy with Iran.

Since the conclusion of the Iranian nuclear deal last July, the perennial antagonism between Riyadh and Tehran has reached a dangerous pitch, fueling the violence that rages in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen and the undercurrent of instability that saturates the region. And the fallout of their rivalry has left its mark well beyond the boundaries of the Gulf, exacerbating volatile energy markets and, by extension, the global economy.

Within OPEC, Riyadh and Tehran are eyeing each other warily, and their continuing differences torpedoed a proposed ceiling on oil production at OPEC’s latest meeting. The outcome was not surprising; a similar effort to agree on a production freeze between the group and a handful of non-OPEC producers fizzled in April. In the meantime, any incentives for drastic measures to address soft oil prices have abated as oil prices creep back up to approximately $50 a barrel.

Iran and Saudi Arabia have plenty of reasons to continue pumping for the foreseeable future. Since the lifting of nuclear-related sanctions in January, Iranian leaders have been determined to make up for lost time and lost revenues, already defying expectations by quickly raising production to levels that hadn’t been reached since November 2011 and aggressively cutting prices in hopes of winning back its pre-sanctions export market.

The centrality of oil to the legitimacy and autonomy of both regimes means that these plans are little more than publicity stunts.

Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia appears prepared to continue pumping at record-high levels, part of a larger strategy aimed at maintaining market share and driving down non-OPEC production. The two states’ economic incentives are compounded by their fierce geostrategic and sectarian rivalry, which has intensified, as evidenced by the standoff over Iranian participation in the annual pilgrimage to Mecca.

But even as the two states duel over oil production and prices, both Saudi Arabia and Iran are conspicuously planning for a post-oil future. Leaders in both countries have decreed an end to the era of oil dependency, endorsing ambitious blueprints for restructuring their economies that—if implemented—would ultimately transform state, society, and the wider region. The centrality of oil to the legitimacy and autonomy of both regimes means that these plans are little more than publicity stunts. Still, just imagine for a moment what it would mean for Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the Middle East if these grandiose agendas were adopted.

Competing and complementary visions

Tehran’s plan actually dates back more than a decade, with the 2005 release of its “20 Year Perspective” (sometimes called “Vision 2025”). The plan laid out extravagant expectations: rapid growth and job creation, diversification away from oil, a knowledge-based economy. Intervening developments—sanctions that targeted Iran’s oil exports and helped expand non-oil trade—have only bolstered the rhetorical commitment of Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to a “resistance economy” in which oil exports constitute a minor part.

“One of our most serious losses is dependence on oil,” Khamenei bemoaned in a 2014 speech. “I am not saying that oil should not be used. Rather, I am saying that we should reduce our dependence on selling crude oil as much as we can.”

Not to be outdone, Saudi Deputy Crown Prince Salman announced Saudi “Vision 2030,” to address what he described as “an addiction to oil.” The plan, which has met with equal doses of fanfare and skepticism since its announcement last month, aims to create a “thriving economy” and end Saudi dependence on oil revenues by 2020. Vision 2030 includes provisions to sell off a small stake in the kingdom’s state oil company, Saudi Aramco, and create the world’s largest sovereign wealth fund to manage the country’s income, as well as goals of creating 450,000 new private sector jobs, cutting public sector wages, and tripling the country’s non-oil exports all within the same abbreviated time frame.

Jeopardizing domestic stability

There is one hitch, however: these aspirations, though laudable, are preposterously unmoored from current political and economic exigencies. The institutions of governance and the structure of power in resource-rich states such as Saudi Arabia and Iran are organized around the state’s role as purveyors of vital social and economic goods. Riyadh and Tehran distribute cash handouts, provide jobs in already-bloated state bureaucracies, and levy few taxes. Diversifying away from reliance on oil would essentially require Riyadh and Tehran to radically curtail this distributive role, inviting historic social and political changes that could ultimately compromise regime ideology and weaken state legitimacy.

[T]hese aspirations, though laudable, are preposterously unmoored from current political and economic exigencies.

In Saudi Arabia, the supply of these benefits is central to the monarchy’s legitimacy. To diversify away from oil, which currently accounts for over 70 percent of government revenues, Riyadh would have to drastically cut spending, far more than it already has. Not only would this further slash subsidies and hike fees, it would also effectively force Saudi workers—two-thirds of whom are employed by the state—to take up private sector jobs, 80 percent of which are currently staffed by expatriates. To accomplish this transition would require fundamental changes to the incentive structure for the Saudi labor force: a much broader willingness to accept low-skill, low-wage jobs, as well as the requisite improvements in education and productivity to support larger numbers of Saudi nationals moving into private sector positions.

For the Saudi economy to be truly competitive, Riyadh would have to initiate dramatic changes to a central component of the Saudi social compact—women’s rights and freedoms. The Vision 2030 document boasts that over 50 percent of Saudi university graduates are women and pledges to “continue to develop their talents, invest in their productive capabilities and enable them to strengthen their future and contribute to the development of our society and economy.”

But the domestic Saudi labor force is overwhelmingly male, and even the plan’s modest aspirations to raise female participation in the workforce from 22 to 30 percent are likely to run into logistical and social obstacles. Shortly after announcing Vision 2030, Deputy Crown Prince Salman said Saudi Arabia is not yet ready to let women drive. A diversified economy will not emerge in the kind of constricted social environment mandated by the Saudi interpretation of sharia (Islamic law).

Iran’s Islamic Republic doesn’t have the same degree of gender segregation, but Iran’s official interpretation of Islam has still constrained female participation in the workforce. Iran employs an equally low percentage of women—according to a 2014 U.N. report around 16 percent—and women’s unemployment is more than double that of men (nearly 20 percent).

The bigger challenge for Iran will be truly opening up its economy to foreign direct investment. This remains hotly contested among the leadership, even in the aftermath of the nuclear agreement and the lifting of related sanctions. While there is some consensus around the need for foreign capital and technology, hardliners including Khamenei are determined to insulate Iran from any accompanying cultural influence and dependency. As the supreme leader recently inveighed, the global economy is “a plan and system that has been devised mainly by Zionist capitalists and some non-Zionists with the purpose of usurping the economic resources of the whole world…If a country merges its economy with the global economy, this is not a source of pride, rather it is a loss and a defeat!”

This deeply-rooted paranoia has provided a convenient platform for the Islamic Republic to galvanize citizens’ loyalty to the state and hostility to outside interference. And it also inhibits the liberalization that makes foreign investment possible: measures to enhance transparency and security, develop more attractive legal and fiscal frameworks, shrink the role of the state, and undertake an array of other structural reforms. Without these measures, Tehran will struggle to capitalize on its extraordinary reengagement with the world.

While Saudi Arabia has maintained a more consistent and mutually beneficial pattern of foreign investment, its leadership too will have to revamp its approach if it is to broaden its economic base. For Riyadh, the challenge is less one of attracting foreign capital than of developing a sustainable influx of technology and expertise to develop sectors other than energy. The kingdom will also have to overcome serious regulatory hurdles and a proclivity for mammoth (and often white elephant) projects.

Compromising regional clout

Riyadh and Tehran will need to balance their economic aspirations and their approach to the region, too. Historically, their role in global energy markets has largely shielded both states from the fallout of regional instability. The world’s need for reliable oil at reasonable prices has inculcated the commitment of outside powers to secure transportation of resources and considerable autonomy for Riyadh and Tehran from the implications of their own policies.

As a result, Saudi Arabia and Iran can fund nefarious activity across the region, violate the civil and human rights of their citizens and other residents, and carry out belligerent foreign policies without severe repercussions for their oil revenues. Only in the past five years has Tehran seen the limits of the world’s reluctance to jeopardize its investment with a major oil exporter; and the recent reversal of the U.N. condemnation regarding the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen demonstrates that Riyadh remains insulated.

Saudi Arabia and Iran can fund nefarious activity across the region, violate the civil and human rights of their citizens and other residents, and carry out belligerent foreign policies without severe repercussions for their oil revenues.

Regional developments make the prospect of economic diversification even less likely, as sensitivity to such developments will only increase if either country successfully develops its non-oil sectors. At the same time, regional stability is a basic prerequisite for economic diversification. Robust growth and good governance throughout the Middle East would provide the optimal context for the economic transformation of Iran and Saudi Arabia, since the marketplace for their non-oil exports is concentrated in the immediate neighborhood. But such transformation would require both countries to put economic priorities that serve their general populations above the ideological and religious agendas—supported by oil rents—that propel their regional and international influence and that provide a large portion of their autonomy in foreign policymaking.

Technocrats in both countries understand this intuitively. At a 2015 conference on Iran’s economy, President Hassan Rouhani wondered “How long can the economy pay subsidies to politics?” He added that the country’s economy “pays subsidies both to foreign policy and domestic policy. Let us try the other way round for a decade and pay subsidies from the domestic and foreign policy to the economy to see [what] the lives and incomes of people and the employment of the youth will be like.” The problem, of course, is political will: neither country is prepared to elevate the interests of its people over the demands of ideology.

Imagining an unlikely future

Can either Iran or Saudi Arabia really kick the oil habit? It seems exceptionally unlikely. Even as Khamenei extols the need for inward-focused development, Tehran is racing to expand crude output level to four million barrels per day by March 2017.

Oil enabled the creation of the modern Middle Eastern state and fueled the rise of both countries to regional predominance. Oil is a vector for their regional rivalry, and it provides prestige and funds to be used in other arenas of competition. A genuine diversification of the two largest economies in the Middle East and North Africa would jeopardize their revenue streams and domestic legitimacy, as well as their efforts to assert their primacy across the Islamic world.

[N]either country is prepared to elevate the interests of its people over the demands of ideology.

“All success stories start with a vision,” Deputy Crown Prince Salman is quoted as saying on the Vision 2030 website. But vision is insufficient to bridge the gap between aspiration and reality; a serious agenda to implement either the Saudi or the Iranian vision would require painful compromises to regime ideology and a fundamental overhaul of the institutions and the structure of power in both countries.

Imagine, though, for a moment, that these far-fetched ambitions were quite serious, and that both the Saudi and Iranian leadership were determined to do what was necessary to truly wean their economies off oil dependence. Consider what it might mean for the region if these grandiose ambitions were not simply the illusions of overpriced consultants and embattled technocrats—if a leadership emerged in one or both of the Middle East’s most powerful actors prepared to invest political capital in a genuine transformation of priorities and policies. What might be possible if Tehran and Riyadh sought to compete for economic opportunities instead of fueling violence and sectarianism around the region? If instead of a vicious sectarian and geopolitical rivalry, these two old adversaries engaged in a race to the top?

What will it take to move these visions from wishful thinking to reality? More than rhetoric, to be sure. But even the articulation of improbable objectives will have its impact. As documented in a recent book, Iran’s post-revolutionary experience demonstrates that the regime’s reliance on promises of economic gains has generated public expectations for effective and accountable governance. Now Iranians and Saudis have been told by their leaders—who happen to be officially infallible—that the time has come to transcend oil. What might happen if they believe it?

]]>
UncategorizedSaudi deputy crown prince and defense minister Mohammad bin Salman is just wrapping up a heavily hyped visit to Washington, aimed at reinforcing the kingdom’s partnership with the United States. Recent years have frayed what is traditionally the central strategic relationship for Riyadh, principally over the Obama administration’s nuclear diplomacy with Iran.
Since the conclusion of the Iranian nuclear deal last July, the perennial antagonism between Riyadh and Tehran has reached a dangerous pitch, fueling the violence that rages in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen and the undercurrent of instability that saturates the region. And the fallout of their rivalry has left its mark well beyond the boundaries of the Gulf, exacerbating volatile energy markets and, by extension, the global economy.
Within OPEC, Riyadh and Tehran are eyeing each other warily, and their continuing differences torpedoed a proposed ceiling on oil production at OPEC’s latest meeting. The outcome was not surprising; a similar effort to agree on a production freeze between the group and a handful of non-OPEC producers fizzled in April. In the meantime, any incentives for drastic measures to address soft oil prices have abated as oil prices creep back up to approximately $50 a barrel.
Iran and Saudi Arabia have plenty of reasons to continue pumping for the foreseeable future. Since the lifting of nuclear-related sanctions in January, Iranian leaders have been determined to make up for lost time and lost revenues, already defying expectations by quickly raising production to levels that hadn’t been reached since November 2011 and aggressively cutting prices in hopes of winning back its pre-sanctions export market.
The centrality of oil to the legitimacy and autonomy of both regimes means that these plans are little more than publicity stunts.
Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia appears prepared to continue pumping at record-high levels, part of a larger strategy aimed at maintaining market share and driving down non-OPEC production. The two states’ economic incentives are compounded by their fierce geostrategic and sectarian rivalry, which has intensified, as evidenced by the standoff over Iranian participation in the annual pilgrimage to Mecca.
But even as the two states duel over oil production and prices, both Saudi Arabia and Iran are conspicuously planning for a post-oil future. Leaders in both countries have decreed an end to the era of oil dependency, endorsing ambitious blueprints for restructuring their economies that—if implemented—would ultimately transform state, society, and the wider region. The centrality of oil to the legitimacy and autonomy of both regimes means that these plans are little more than publicity stunts. Still, just imagine for a moment what it would mean for Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the Middle East if these grandiose agendas were adopted.
Competing and complementary visions
Tehran’s plan actually dates back more than a decade, with the 2005 release of its “20 Year Perspective” (sometimes called “Vision 2025”). The plan laid out extravagant expectations: rapid growth and job creation, diversification away from oil, a knowledge-based economy. Intervening developments—sanctions that targeted Iran’s oil exports and helped expand non-oil trade—have only bolstered the rhetorical commitment of Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to a “resistance economy” in which oil exports constitute a minor part.
“One of our most serious losses is dependence on oil,” Khamenei bemoaned in a 2014 speech. “I am not saying that oil should not be used. Rather, I am saying that we should reduce our dependence on selling crude oil as much as we can.”
Not to be outdone, Saudi Deputy Crown Prince Salman announced Saudi “Vision 2030,” to address what he described as ... Saudi deputy crown prince and defense minister Mohammad bin Salman is just wrapping up a heavily hyped visit to Washington, aimed at reinforcing the kingdom’s partnership with the United States. Recent years have frayed what is traditionally ... https://www.brookings.edu/2016/06/03/no-better-alternative-the-u-s-saudi-counterterrorism-relationship/No better alternative: The U.S.-Saudi counterterrorism relationshiphttp://webfeeds.brookings.edu/~/171794508/0/brookingsrss/topics/saudiarabia~No-better-alternative-The-USSaudi-counterterrorism-relationship/
Mon, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000http://www.brookings.edu?p=109590&preview_id=109590The U.S.-Saudi relationship has come under hard times this year. In testimony before a subcommittee of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Dan Byman reviewed U.S.-Saudi counterterrorism cooperation, examined several of the persistent challenges, and offered some commentary on the relationship going forward.

]]>
The U.S.-Saudi relationship has come under hard times this year: from the public debate over the Joint 9/11 Congressional Inquiry’s 28 classified pages to President Obama’s famously reported irritation with the longstanding strategic partner. There have been serious discussions in the public square and even the halls of Congress about the utility of the relationship and the sincerity of Saudi interests.

In recent testimony before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs’ Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade, Dan Byman—a senior fellow and director of research in the Center for Middle East Policy—reviewed U.S.-Saudi counterterrorism cooperation, examined several of the persistent challenges, and offered some commentary on the relationship going forward.

A checkered past

Byman reviewed the gradual evolution of the Kingdom’s role in the Islamic world. Although the House of Saud forged the country in an alliance with conservative religious leaders, Byman points to the rise of pan-Arabism and communism in the 1960s to explain the increasingly prominent role of Islam in the Kingdom’s foreign policy. The windfall of oil revenue after the 1973 Arab-Israeli war provided Saudi Arabia unprecedented resources to devote to Islamic causes, which began spreading conservative Saudi beliefs throughout the world. Most of these efforts provided much-needed aid, education, healthcare, and other services to impoverished Muslim communities, but with the schools, clinics, and mosques also came the fundamentalist Salafi teachings that have helped fuel the rise of violent extremist groups.

The Kingdom exacerbated the rise and spread of the global jihadist movement, and its associated threat of terrorism, because jihad abroad, from Afghanistan to Kashmir to Chechnya, “enjoyed wide legitimacy within the Kingdom, and citizen support for these conflicts seemed to pose no direct threat to Saudi security.” Through the extensive global network of Islamic charities, money and volunteers flowed to terrorist organizations like al-Qaida, funding training camps and religious schools justifying violent jihad. However, Byman does still note that the majority of the estimated billions of dollars spent by the Saudis over the last half-century funded proselytizing and humanitarian work, not military training or terrorist acts.

Terrorism in Saudi Arabia

The most significant turning point in the U.S.-Saudi counterterrorism relationship, according to Byman, occurred in early 2003, when al-Qaida began directly attacking Saudi Arabia. In the decade-plus since, the Saudis have waged a costly campaign that has essentially eradicated al-Qaida from the Kingdom. American assistance was critical to this successful Saudi counterterrorism effort, but Byman also highlights the reciprocal Saudi assistance to the United States. From providing decisive eleventh hour intelligence to foil a terrorist attack to basing American drones, Byman stresses that Saudi Arabia has been an indispensable partner in combatting al-Qaida and now the Islamic State.

The Saudis have also made tremendous progress, in his view, in stopping terrorist financing, especially since accepting American technical expertise post-2003. Yet the Saudis still have more work to do. Byman highlighted the political difficulty, beyond the mere technical challenges, faced by the Saudi authorities attempting to halt financing, because they could suffer potentially serious domestic backlash for interfering with support for popular extremist groups in Pakistan and Kashmir. Thus, the royal family continues to tolerate some extremist rhetoric from within the clerical establishment to maintain legitimacy despite simultaneously cooperating with the United States.

Brave new Kingdom?

In Byman’s view, the past 13 years have demonstrated Saudi Arabia to be an integral partner to the American campaign against the global jihadist movement, and the Kingdom has certainly suffered extensively for it. Yet Saudi Arabia continues to be a significant source of extremist ideology, foreign fighters, and material aid, albeit not necessarily government-sponsored in many cases. This creates fertile soil for al-Qaida in the past and the Islamic State today in many countries. Nonetheless, Byman argued, the royal family still values the relationship with the United States as vital to the regime’s survival, and thus it is even willing to occasionally risk popular outrage to maintain American support.

One of the greatest challenges facing the U.S.-Saudi relationship, he said, is the unprecedented uncertainty surrounding the Kingdom’s political and economic future. King Salman will be the last of his generation, the sons of the first king, Ibn Saud. The Saudis under King Salman have already dramatically changed their historical role in the region, Byman noted, such as by leading a war in Yemen. Salman’s young son, the Deputy Crown Prince, has also “proposed an ambitious set of reforms to wean the Kingdom off its dependence on oil.” However, for the United States, Byman cautioned that the prospects of the proposed reforms dramatically changing the Kingdom’s radicalization problems remain unlikely in the short term.

No illusions

The United States must avoid any illusions regarding the nature of the counterterrorism relationship and remain realistic in its expectations of influencing Saudi policy, Byman stressed. He again acknowledged the vital importance of Saudi Arabia to the United States in the fight against the Islamic State, al-Qaida, and other jihadist groups. American officials should also continue to diplomatically encourage the Kingdom to suppress extremist financing and support, including the rhetorical support from some in the religious establishment, but Byman conceded that “change in these areas will at best be slow, and the United States should expect progress to end or even reverse should the regime’s domestic situation face challenges.” Ultimately, as Byman concluded, U.S. interests are best advanced through pragmatic cooperation with Saudi Arabia despite the “profound differences in values.”

]]>
UncategorizedThe U.S.-Saudi relationship has come under hard times this year: from the public debate over the Joint 9/11 Congressional Inquiry’s 28 classified pages to President Obama’s famously reported irritation with the longstanding strategic partner. There have been serious discussions in the public square and even the halls of Congress about the utility of the relationship and the sincerity of Saudi interests.
In recent testimony before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs’ Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade, Dan Byman—a senior fellow and director of research in the Center for Middle East Policy—reviewed U.S.-Saudi counterterrorism cooperation, examined several of the persistent challenges, and offered some commentary on the relationship going forward.
A checkered past
Byman reviewed the gradual evolution of the Kingdom’s role in the Islamic world. Although the House of Saud forged the country in an alliance with conservative religious leaders, Byman points to the rise of pan-Arabism and communism in the 1960s to explain the increasingly prominent role of Islam in the Kingdom’s foreign policy. The windfall of oil revenue after the 1973 Arab-Israeli war provided Saudi Arabia unprecedented resources to devote to Islamic causes, which began spreading conservative Saudi beliefs throughout the world. Most of these efforts provided much-needed aid, education, healthcare, and other services to impoverished Muslim communities, but with the schools, clinics, and mosques also came the fundamentalist Salafi teachings that have helped fuel the rise of violent extremist groups.
The Kingdom exacerbated the rise and spread of the global jihadist movement, and its associated threat of terrorism, because jihad abroad, from Afghanistan to Kashmir to Chechnya, “enjoyed wide legitimacy within the Kingdom, and citizen support for these conflicts seemed to pose no direct threat to Saudi security.” Through the extensive global network of Islamic charities, money and volunteers flowed to terrorist organizations like al-Qaida, funding training camps and religious schools justifying violent jihad. However, Byman does still note that the majority of the estimated billions of dollars spent by the Saudis over the last half-century funded proselytizing and humanitarian work, not military training or terrorist acts.
Terrorism in Saudi Arabia
The most significant turning point in the U.S.-Saudi counterterrorism relationship, according to Byman, occurred in early 2003, when al-Qaida began directly attacking Saudi Arabia. In the decade-plus since, the Saudis have waged a costly campaign that has essentially eradicated al-Qaida from the Kingdom. American assistance was critical to this successful Saudi counterterrorism effort, but Byman also highlights the reciprocal Saudi assistance to the United States. From providing decisive eleventh hour intelligence to foil a terrorist attack to basing American drones, Byman stresses that Saudi Arabia has been an indispensable partner in combatting al-Qaida and now the Islamic State.
The Saudis have also made tremendous progress, in his view, in stopping terrorist financing, especially since accepting American technical expertise post-2003. Yet the Saudis still have more work to do. Byman highlighted the political difficulty, beyond the mere technical challenges, faced by the Saudi authorities attempting to halt financing, because they could suffer potentially serious domestic backlash for interfering with support for popular extremist groups in Pakistan and Kashmir. Thus, the royal family continues to tolerate some extremist rhetoric from within the clerical establishment to maintain legitimacy despite simultaneously cooperating with the United States.
Brave new Kingdom?
In Byman’s view, the past 13 years have demonstrated Saudi Arabia to be an integral partner to the American campaign against the global ... The U.S.-Saudi relationship has come under hard times this year: from the public debate over the Joint 9/11 Congressional Inquiry’s 28 classified pages to President Obama’s famously reported irritation with the longstanding strategic ...